I find that statement about "the liberals ruining the church for the past 40 years" to be offensive. One may as well argue that declining membership and lack of new ordinations of priests in the American Roman Catholic Church to be because of "40 yrs of liberal mismanagement." As well may argue that present generations had a problem with Vatican II. Before the past 2 yrs (when this whole gay marriage thing blew up), people were leaving the churches, ironically, because of the stranglehold of conseratives. For example, I wonder if your average western Roman Catholic knows that in Africa, Catholic priests have always been allowed to marry? For some reason, the Church has kept this fact hush-hush, even as they seek to crack down ever more harshly on "liberal" demands that priest be allowed to marry. The Boston sex scandal has only accelerated this alientation. In Africa, I suppose, you couldn't expect to even HAVE a Catholic church there, so I guess this is the one areaof the world where the Vatican has given in.

People are leaving the mainstream traditional churches, quite simply, becuase they are boring. They feel alienated, as they are unresponsive to demands for change, ossified in antuquated ritual, the sermons are for the most part not addressing contemporary issues, and those they do attempt to address are out of touch. IN a way, they are open to attack from both sides of the political spectrum.

Of course, our "Christian in Chief" (if one could call a man who gleefully advocates torture and imprisonment without trail of men who have not been proven guilty of any crime, and any other number of lies, cheating, etc etc, a Christian--as I have said else where, I find it the supreme irony that while we are supposedly trying to make Iraq a secular democracy, the mullahs are taking over at home, and we are being led by the Mullah in Chief) foments a great deal of this, and for purely political reasons. I don't find him addressing other aspects of Christian life, humaniarian concerns; ONLY issues that were politically devisive before he took power (abortion for example.) that could be turned to his advantage.

I am SO saddened and confused by this, as I myself, while hating these churches who meddle in politics with every fiber of my being (having been in a couple and seen the ugly way they work), also agree with them in this one aspect about gay marriage. If it was just to cement the unnatural relationship, why can't they be satified with going to a justic of the peace? And if that wasn't bad enough, if you S'anctify" a gay marriage, they now want to adopt children, and have the same financa rights as natural unions? The attempt to incorporate children into some sort of "family" is indeed a perversion of nature. I'm sorry, but I have to say it, and I wonder how all these couples who have taught their little kids that they have 2 mommes or 2 daddies are going to teach "their" kids about sex ed. Can you see it now..."Mommy" (a little girl, to a man) where did I come from? Where do babies come from? " And of course they'd have to confront this issue and explain. One can imagine which way the conversation is going to go....children being honest beings. 10 yrs fromnow, let's see how successful these children broughtup under such circumsyances are....

I am sorry and saddened that this has to come about. But the gay community has brought this upon themsleves, by pushing this issue too far.This is the ONLY time that I'd draw the line at civil liberties, and normally I am the most civil libertarian out there. This is THE one issue where I draw the line. I'd rather legalize prostitution first. That, to me, would be less of a moral crime, and would even have its uses. You can argue "civil liberties" allyou want, but when you tamper with the most basic fabric of society--the composition of the family, and teaching children that you can have 2 parents of the same sex--THAT is where I draw the line. That os the ONLY true perversion of nature, and of human scoiety, and leftist that I may be, the way some people are using this issue as a sort of "litmus test" (the same way conservatives make abortion rights) is utterly disgusting.

Whay can't there be a place for moderates, for voices of reasona and common sense? I feel that that we are reverting back to the ages of the 16th and 17th centuries, the religious wars we today scoff at--"how many angles can dance o the head of a pin? as we say. Are we any better, when there are REALLY important things going on in the world?

And if I were Episcoplian, (which I'm not), I'd leave the chruch altogether, and not go to ANY church, either side.

My church, the Armenian Aposptolic, hasn't publicly made a statement but we are a pretty conservative church. More importantly, like most Eastern chruches, our priests can marry. It's only the Bishops who can't. I find that high levels of sexual frustration leads to problems.

The worst part is, this Catholic thing about priests not being able to mary isn't even from the Boble, nor from the time of the Apostles. It only dates back to the Middle Ages. I wonder how many Catholics are taught that either?

Originally posted by Teta040 I am SO saddened and confused by this, as I myself, while hating these churches who meddle in politics with every fiber of my being (having been in a couple and seen the ugly way they work), also agree with them in this one aspect about gay marriage. If it was just to cement the unnatural relationship, why can't they be satified with going to a justic of the peace? And if that wasn't bad enough, if you S'anctify" a gay marriage, they now want to adopt children, and have the same financa rights as natural unions? The attempt to incorporate children into some sort of "family" is indeed a perversion of nature. I'm sorry, but I have to say it, and I wonder how all these couples who have taught their little kids that they have 2 mommes or 2 daddies are going to teach "their" kids about sex ed. Can you see it now..."Mommy" (a little girl, to a man) where did I come from? Where do babies come from? " And of course they'd have to confront this issue and explain. One can imagine which way the conversation is going to go....children being honest beings. 10 yrs fromnow, let's see how successful these children broughtup under such circumsyances are....

I don't even want to dignify this shit with a response. It's amusing how I agreed with you, until you started spouting antiquated prejudices that made me reject the "ossified" ritual that is religion.

If a penis and a vagina is all that's necessary to be "good parents," then why are all the penises and vaginas getting DNA tests on "Maury Povich"?

Originally posted by Teta040 The worst part is, this Catholic thing about priests not being able to mary isn't even from the Boble, nor from the time of the Apostles. It only dates back to the Middle Ages. I wonder how many Catholics are taught that either?

"This Catholic" learned that in "Church History" in his Catholic HS.

How "enlightened" you are, only to spout homophobic stereotypes in a previous paragraph. While you were reading all the anti-Catholic literature, you probably missed reading a social science book that completely dismissed every homophobic thing you said.

I'm sorry if you think I am speaking in "homophobic sterotypes." And I want you to know that I have done a great deal of agonizing thought about this issue. A GREAT deal. And I've already told you that I couldn't bear to set foot in a church that had anti-gay policies, simply becuase they are intolerant of everything. You'll notice that i didn't spout any Sodom and Gomorrah fiddle-fadle because I can't stand people retreating blindly behind walls of Scripture. My opposition comes ultimately from much agonized thought of very practical everyday questions, questions that you don't need Scripture to answer.

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own? Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are? Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life? That they can say,
If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....to be able to give thier children the time and care their parents never gave them. To not be like their parents.

Let me tell you something: If my don or daughter said they were gay, I would not "cast them out" as so many right-wingers would. They are my child, and I support them whatever they do. I can't change it, after all. If they walked up to me with another of the same sex and said, "this is my wife," or whatever, I'd smile. They'd be welcome in my house, just the same as always. But if they told me they were going to be bringing a child into their house and raising it as if they were naturla parents, I'd draw the line. I would weep, I'd rage, I'd tear out my hair, I'd abase myself before God for having to commit an act of seperation, but I would have to tell them that that I could not accept. I would not turn them away, I'd merely tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child. I could not be a "grandma" in that circumstance. There'd be no Scripture, not finger-pointing, no moral claptrap. I'd slump on the couch and weep and wail, but I would have to stand firm. Simply beucase I believe, deep down in my heart, that it is the wrong way for a child to be brought up, and would cause that child too many problems. As I said before: this whole "gay family" thing is in its infancy. 20 yrs from now, let's see how these kids turn out.

I am sorry if this offends you. And it is not an easy thing to say. But CAN'T you understand that some of us, just because we express concerns of any sort, are NOT homophobes? You rush to make assumptions based on that. If the scenario I described above occurred, I'd not cast them out. I find the idea of cutting off contact with anybody a terrible thing. I;d carry on as if things were normal, but for that thing. I'd call them, talk with them, love them, we'd go on as if nothing happened, and they were my child and my friend. They just could not enter my roof as a triumvirate. They should take the hint and not press the issue, any more than they wouldn't get drunk under my roof.

Oh: and regarding the thread below, I have to give my opinion on 2 things.

1) I am against a constituional amendment. This should be a "states rights" issue, like the legalization of pot. I'd protest if one was passed, as I can't stand "mullah in Chief" Bush in action.

2) Forbidding gays to marry does NOT make them "second class citizens." They can marry like so many traditional couples do: by a Justice of the Peace. My mom married 3 times and never had a chruch wedding. I don't consider myself a bastard (in the old sense of the term.) If someone passed a law forbidding this, I'd protest that too. Are people who marry in non-religious weddings S'econd class"? You decide.

Now do you see how complicated this is, for some people?? Some of us don't fall clearly into one slot or the other.

Originally posted by Teta040 I'm sorry if you think I am speaking in "homophobic sterotypes." And I want you to know that I have done a great deal of agonizing thought about this issue. A GREAT deal. And I've already told you that I couldn't bear to set foot in a church that had anti-gay policies, simply becuase they are intolerant of everything. You'll notice that i didn't spout any Sodom and Gomorrah fiddle-fadle because I can't stand people retreating blindly behind walls of Scripture. My opposition comes ultimately from much agonized thought of very practical everyday questions, questions that you don't need Scripture to answer.

At bare minimum, I appreciate you putting thought into the issue. That's more I can say from most people.

Quote:

But I wish some of these people who have no problem with "raising" children in a same-sex union just stop and think about the long-term consequences of how that child will develop. Little kids won't know any better, but what happens when they grow up, and set out on their own? Do you seriously think that they will be just as comfortable in the world as you are? Do you think that if they want to marry "traditionally", that they 'll just be able to hop, skip and jump into "regular" life? That they can say,
If you guys want to marry like my 'parents' did, that's fine, but me, I'll marry the opposite sex and have kids biologically?" You assme that children brought up in these circumsyances will be able to adjust to the world around them with little thought. It's the same logic that older parents made in assuming that divorce has no long-term effect on kids, and they get over it. Well, coming from this 36 yr old veteran of my mom's 3 marriages, that's a load of crap. Why are so many Gen Xer's going into teaching" To not live thier lives the way their parents did....

I just really have no idea where you get this argument from. Do you think that heterosexuals are all angels? Over half of all children now are born as bastards, and probably most of these children are raised by single parents. And let's not forget all the divorces and overall infidelity.

Let's face it: heteros are the *last* people who should be pointing their fingers at homosexuals and wondering if they're going to be bad parents. No, you've all done a good job of fucking up your children without all the big bad homos to blame.

If you're imagining a "Big Gay Al" South Park stereotype raising children, then don't. The slutty stereotypes probably do want nothing to do with marriage or children. Those who do want to get married and adopt children someday are more conservative, and make perfectly fine parents, no better or worse than heteros. And you know why? Despite all this "gay marriage" hoopla, gay individuals have *already* been allowed to adopt for decades. And the studies are out: the children grow up equally normal and well-adjusted.

Quote:

But if they told me they were going to be bringing a child into their house and raising it as if they were naturla parents, I'd draw the line. I would weep, I'd rage, I'd tear out my hair, I'd abase myself before God for having to commit an act of seperation, but I would have to tell them that that I could not accept. I would not turn them away, I'd merely tell them that they couldn't enter my house with that child. I could not be a "grandma" in that circumstance. There'd be no Scripture, not finger-pointing, no moral claptrap. I'd slump on the couch and weep and wail, but I would have to stand firm.

You're being completely irrational here. Again, credible long-term research sources say that homosexuals make perfectly normal parents, and their children grow up to be perfectly normal. That's not to say that all are going to be good or normal, but heteros have developed some pretty bad and homicidal children too.

I'll be blunt: you seem like an otherwise reasoned and rational person, but this seems to be nothing more than an unabated prejudice that you refuse to let go. And you are entitled to your opinion, but think about what I've said here.

I am thinking. I;ve thought, and thought, and I didn't develop these opinions overnight.

I just read a couple of other threads on here. Every time the Pope (great insirational leader that he is, Communism etc, but still, celibate) or any other leader opens up their trap about "morality" and society", I have to laugh. beucase today the biggest public Christians commit the greatest evil.

But then, I think about my opinions..and personal observations..and my life experience..and I feel the way i do.

Now I know why I never used to enter this part of the Forum...it messes me up too much. I am sick of the stench of politics poisoning everything.

Originally posted by Teta040 Oh: and regarding the thread below, I have to give my opinion on 2 things.

1) I am against a constituional amendment. This should be a "states rights" issue, like the legalization of pot. I'd protest if one was passed, as I can't stand "mullah in Chief" Bush in action.

I don't think 50 state amendments against gay marriage make homosexuals feel any better. Their rights are still being denied at the prejudiced whim of the "majority."

Quote:

2) Forbidding gays to marry does NOT make them "second class citizens." They can marry like so many traditional couples do: by a Justice of the Peace. My mom married 3 times and never had a chruch wedding. I don't consider myself a bastard (in the old sense of the term.) If someone passed a law forbidding this, I'd protest that too. Are people who marry in non-religious weddings S'econd class"? You decide.

First off, your first statement is a contradiction. No one said that legalizing gay marriage would force religions to perform them. On the contrary, if a same-sex couple wants to go to a Unitarian church, they can get married right there. It just won't be legal. But you can't go to a "Justice of the Peace," because gay marriage is illegal (everywhere but MA).

I really have no problem with religions being opposed to gay marriage, because there are plenty of religions that are in favor of it. I do have a problem with homophobic religions speaking for all of religion and then demanding to legislate their prejudices into law. Even in MA, where gay marriage is legal, religions that are opposed to gay marriage are not even remotely forced to perform ceremonies. This is really a moot argument.